Antonin Scalia,
Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling…
“ If the benefits of judicial efficiency and economy constitute sufficient warrant for the District Court's action, then one can imagine numerous areas in which district courts should similarly take on the function of litigation touts-whenever, in fact, they have before them a claim that is similar to claims which other identifiable individuals might possess. ”
Antonin Scalia,
Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling…
“ We are told that the district court has a "managerial responsibility to oversee the joinder of additional parties" in § 216 (b) actions, ante, at 171, in order to protect potential plaintiffs and avoid duplicative litigation. We are told that all concerned-plaintiffs, defendants, and the judicial system itself benefit when the district courts abandon their "passiv [e] " stance and instead undertake "early judicial intervention" in the process of identifying people who have a cause of action and securing their consent to join the litigation. ”
Antonin Scalia,
Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling…
“ The Court's suggestion that ADEA suits are rendered distinctive by § 216 (b) 's "explicit statutory direction of a single ADEA action for multiple ADEA plaintiffs," ante, at 172, is entirely unpersuasive. Section 216 no more directs a single action in ADEA litigation than Rule 20 (permissive joinder) directs a single action in all other litigation. Both provisions permit (in the words of Rule 20) that persons may "join in one action as plaintiffs [who] assert [a] right to relief . ”
